¿Qué sucedería en tu pueblo, en tu barrio, o en tu ciudad, si se descubriera que un adulto de 36 años ha estado manteniendo relaciones sexuales con un menor de 13 años? ¿Te sorprendería saber que 24 años después, la persona que cometió el abuso, y la víctima, llevan 18 años de casados y tienen tres hijos? ¿Existiría alguna diferencia si la persona que cometió el abuso es una mujer y la víctima un hombre? Detrás de esas perturbadoras preguntas, se centra la trama de Secretos de un Escándalo (Título Original: May December) un inquietante, pero muy honesto retrato de las causas y las consecuencias de la vulneración infantil, a partir de las relaciones desiguales de poder, encarnadas por la relación entre Gracie (Julianne Moore) y Joe (Charles Melton), analizada desde la perspectiva de Elizabeth (Natalie Portman), una actriz que intenta recrear a Gracie en la pantalla grande.
Ahora, si después de ver la película aún te preguntas (1) qué tipo de relación existió realmente entre Gracie y Joe, cuando éste tenía 13 años; (2) si en realidad Gracie fue abusada sexualmente por sus hermanos mayores; (3) si en realidad Gracie engañó a Elizabeth todo el tiempo que estuvo en Savannah, y (4) la razón por la que Joe lloraba cuando sus hijos Charlie y Mary recibían su diploma de secundaria, no te preocupes porque a continuación y sin más preámbulo damos inicio al Análisis y Explicación de Secretos de un Escándalo (May December).
1 ^ ¿Qué clase de mujer es Gracie Atherton?
Antes de empezar a responder las preguntas clave de la película, analicemos al centro de la trama, Gracie Atherton interpretada por Julianne Moore. Al inicio de la historia, Gracie es una mujer de 60 años, condenada a 7 años de prisión por abusar sexualmente de Joe Yoo, un adolescente de 13 años; cuando Elizabeth llega a Savannah nota de inmediato que la relación entre Gracie y Joe, ahora de 36 años, es perfectamente sana y normal, a pesar de su perturbador pasado. Sin embargo, dos escenas clave nos ayudan a entender qué clase de mujer es Gracie.
What is the true meaning of Taylor Swift’s new single – Fortnight – video? Directed by Taylor Swift herself with photography by Rodrigo Prieto (The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon) the video is quite unusual in its deep meaning visuals, at least within Swift’s prolific and divergent videography, so if you are wondering what is really going on in the video, just keep reading.
1 ^ What is going on the Fortnight video?
The video of The Tortured Poets Department’s first single – Fortnight – is divided in 5 sequences:
Sequence # 1: Taylor wakes up in a rather twisted bedroom. Disorientated at first, she is not quite sure to know where she really is. Suddenly, a nurse enters the room, walking across the ceiling, and administers a pill to Taylor. Once she swallows the pill, not entirely unwillingly, she is released from the chains binding her to the bed. She walks to the closest mirror and she cleans her face revealing Post-Malone’s tattoos appearing one by one.
Sequence # 2: Now Taylor exits through a door, finding herself in a typewriting room, where she begins working and we see Post-Malone in front of her. The scene implies there’s some kind of restrained feelings among them, only expressed by tender glances.
Sequence # 3: In an empty, desolate landscape strewn with typewritten paper, Taylor and Post-Malone lock eyes, holding hands. In this sequence they show true and authentic love to each other, laughing, hugging and kissing. But in one point they look at each other in disbelief.
Sequence # 4: Taylor is tied to a electrocution machine. She is about to receive electroconvulsive therapy by a team of doctors including Post-Malone and Ethan Hawke. When the machine is activated, Taylor is tortured but the malfunction of the electrical system forces Post-Malone to intervine. He and Taylor look at each other in complicity, while he unplugs the machine.
Sequence # 5: The final sequence depicts Post-Malone calling from a payphone, while Taylor is on top of the phone booth, under a pouring rain. Finally Post-Malone emerges from the box, his hand reaching to intertwine with Taylor’s. This sequence cuts back and forth between the moment under the rain and some flashbacks from Sequence # 1 and #2.
2 ^ What is real and what is not real in the video?
The only two sequences that are actually real are Sequence # 4 and Sequence # 5. In the video, a woman portrayed by Taylor Swift is locked in a mental facility, being treated, or more quite, being tortured with electroconvulsive therapy. But she has some kind of reciprocated connection with the doctor portrayed by Post-Malone, to the point he sabotages the torture machine. The final sequence implies Dr. Post-Malone has released Taylor from the facility. Next, we see him trying to call someone to help them while he reaffirms his love for her.
Sequences #1, #2, and #3 are delusions, each one deeper than the last. These fantasies portray a warped reality created by Taylor’s damaged mind. Fueled by the medication she takes, in these delusions it is evident Taylor is convinced Dr Post-Malone really loves her, but she is unsure if he’s really committed to set her free or if he prefers to let her stay in the facility, prisoner of her own mind. We know these sequences are only fantasies because when Taylor is finally released and she is with Dr. Post-Malone under the rain, the fantasies start to break down, and now the only thing that matter is the reality with him.
What do you think? Do you have another explanation for the video? Write it down in the comments.
Si hay una serie intrigante y excepcional en el catálogo de estrenos de Netflix en este 2024, esa es Las Variaciones Grimm (The Grimm Variations), una mirada peculiar y bastante retorcida de los famosos cuentos de hadas que, por lo menos en Colombia, se hicieron inmensamente populares por el anime de 1988 que se emite todos los fines de semana en el Canal Caracol. Ahora, en otra publicación hablaremos extensamente de las introducciones que se presentan en cada episodio, pero a continuación y sin más preámbulo vamos a analizar el primer cuento que nos presenta esta historia: La Cenicienta.
1 ^ ¿Qué diferencias hay entre la Cenicienta clásica y la de las Variaciones Grimm?
Sin duda, la diferencia más significativa es la ubicación geográfica. La Cenicienta de Las Variaciones Grimm se sitúa en el Japón de inicios del Siglo XX, y aunque mantiene la misma estructura de los personajes, es decir, la madrastra, las dos hermanastras, el noble heredero y la damisela protagonistas, las motivaciones de ésta última son, cuando menos, tenebrosas.
Mientras que el cuento clásico de Los Hermanos Grimm, es una historia en la que la amabilidad y el buen corazón de una joven, le permite no sólo superar la adversidad provocada por su nueva familia, sino incluso ganar el corazón de un príncipe, en Las Variaciones Grimm, la joven protagonista no se puede definir de otra manera que como una psicópata manipuladora.
2 ^ ¿Qué rayos es lo que le sucede a Kiyoko? ¿La muñeca de Kiyoko es diabólica?
La protagonista de esta versión de Cenicienta se llama Kiyoko Otawara. Kiyoko ha sufrido la pérdida de su madre, y vive con su padre en un Japón que inicia el Siglo XX en pleno renacimiento industrial. El asunto es que, quizás por la ausencia de su madre, y la sobreprotección de su padre, un noble Vizconde, Kiyoko ha desarrollado un patrón mental que le entrega parte de su personalidad a una muñeca con la que habla frecuentemente.
If you have seen or read a little about the current extremely polarized political landscape of the United States, you surely know that there are two states that are diametrically opposed in terms of political ideology. Those two states are California and Texas.
California is an extremely liberal blue (liberal) state, which promotes the integration of minorities and immigrants, the rights of the LGTBI+ community, establishment of measures that promote equality, minimum wages, labor rights, and essentially a bunch of state and federal protections on the population – whether or not they contribute to society.
Texas, on the other hand, is a heavily red (conservative) state, which promotes individual freedoms, the carrying of weapons, the American identity, the traditional family, hard work and free market as the only means to obtain benefits and income, and behind all that, the central idea that each individual is on his own, which means that everyone is obliged to contribute to social development, well if he does not want to starve to death.
Now, how is it that two states with such different ideologies are on the same side in the A24 studio film, Civil War? The answer is quite interesting.
To begin with, director Alex Garland has implied that the conflict involves the actions of the President (Nick Offerman) against the Constitution and the citizens of the United States, one can deduce that he attacks specifically against Texas and California. Let’s read what he said literally:
There is a fascist president who smashed the Constitution and attacked [American] citizens. And that is a very clear, answered statement. If you want to think about why Texas and California might be allied, and put aside their political differences, the answer would be implicit in that. –Alex Garland
If there is one freedom, guaranteed in the Constitution, that the citizens of Texas and California make wide use of, it is their freedom of speech. And it is also striking that there are many States that remain loyal to the U.S. Government. The issue could involve some type of Executive Order issued by the President against extremist activism, whether from Democrats or Republicans, in which basically all the civil liberties of these individuals can be restricted in a very Guantanamish way. Now, the fact that the film mentions that fire was opened on civilians seems to support this theory.
If there is one freedom, guaranteed in the Constitution, that the citizens of Texas and California make wide use of, it is their freedom of speech. And it is also striking that there are many States that remain loyal to the U.S. Government. The issue could involve some type of Executive Order issued by the President against extremist activism, whether from Democrats or Republicans, in which basically all the civil liberties of these individuals can be restricted in a very Guantanamish way. Now, the fact that the film mentions that fire was opened on civilians seems to support this theory.
In that scenario, it would be illegal, both for the recalcitrant activists of San Francisco (California), and for the armed rednecks in Amarillo (Texas), to say anything that could be understood as proselytizing for their causes, and surely after seeing that the President was not playing, by condemning several of his ideological colleagues to imprisonment, without trial, the situation could certainly get out of control. Now, the fact that several states have simply declared themselves neutral, such as the Florida Alliance, and those of the New People’s Army, only indicates that they are going to be on the winning side, because the United States is not even 1/3 of what it is, without those 2 states precisely.
If we have several imprisonments of activists who promoted extremist positions (at least from the point of view of the President’s Executive Order), it is quite likely that there have been riots and chaos in Texas and California, to the point of becoming unmanageable. Most likely under the pretext of protecting the life and honor of the population, President enforce his own Executive Order to open fire on the civilians. Now, imagine the reaction of ordinary individuals in California and Texas when their country’s army invades their territory and murders civilians.
This would undoubtedly force the governors of California and Texas to 1) ally in a strategic plan to safeguard themselves from a deeply unpopular government in their states, 2) occupy the positions of the U.S. military in their territories, including its arsenal, and 3 ) declare itself as two independent republics banded together. And this is how when the film begins, they have been so successful that they are 200 kilometers from D.C.
In any case, it would not be the first time that violent extremism ultimately ends in war. So, what do you think?
Si usted ha visto o ha leído un poco sobre el panorama político de los Estados Unidos, panorama que se polariza aún más para las fechas en que hay elecciones presidenciales, sabrá que hay dos estados diametralmente en cuestiones de ideología política, esos dos estados son California y Texas.
California, es un estado desmesuradamente demócrata y liberal, que promueve la integración de las minorías y los inmigrantes, los derechos de la comunidad LGTBI+, establecimiento de medidas que promueva la igualdad, salarios mínimos, derechos laborales, y en esencia un cúmulo de protecciones estatales y federales (léase nacionales), sobre los ciudadanos, contribuyan o no contribuyan a la sociedad.
Texas, por otro lado, es un estado ponderativamente republicano y conservador, que promueve las libertades individuales, el porte de armas, la identidad americana (léase estadounidense), la familia tradicional, el trabajo y el libre mercado como únicos medios para obtener beneficios y renta, y detrás de eso, la idea central de que cada individuo debe defenderse por sí mismo, lo que equivale a que todos están obligados a contribuir al desarrollo social, para no morirse de hambre.
Ahora ¿Cómo es que dos Estados con ideologías tan diferentes están en el mismo bando en la película del estudio A24, Guerra Civil? La respuesta es bastante interesante.
El Sabanero X 